Short Summary
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide the validity issues and that the Director’s review request should be denied.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00274, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, PacifiCorp, and WEC Energy Group contest the validity of MES, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 10,331,114 covering mercury emission control technologies for coal‑fired power plants. The petitioners contend that the Director’s decision to refer the petition for review was erroneous, that the petitions are not barred by the one‑year time limit, and that no unnamed real parties or privies exist to preclude the challenge. They further argue that the PTAB is the most efficient forum, the MDL cannot address all validity issues, and that settled expectations do not exist, urging the Board to deny the Director’s discretionary denial and institution review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. vs MES, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al.vsNeapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute six IPRs against iCashe’s patent 9,208,423.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.